Erasmus’s pursuit of peace has often been defined as pacifism. This essay investigates this notion.

What is it about?

The aim of this essay is to show that Erasmus’s concept of peace should be understood as a form of irenicism rather than pacifism. I argue that Erasmus’s basic claims on war and peace do not qualify him as a pacifist, first of all because his concept of peace is non-universal: it is exclusively Christian since it does not include Muslims and Jews unless they have converted to Christianity. Secondly, Erasmus’s willingness to fight the Turks and his call for a Christian war against them suggests that he was not a pacifist. Since the peace Erasmus preached for was exclusively Christian, it cannot be identified as pacifism in its accepted universal sense, but rather as a commitment to the peace of Christendom, and therefore his concept of peace should more precisely be described as irenic. By shedding new light on Erasmus’s notion of war and peace, this essay suggests that his alleged religious tolerance should be considered anew.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Ideally, Erasmus would have preferred to stick to his evangelical convictions on war and peace, as reflected in his annotations to Lucas. He adhered to the teachings of Jesus and to those of the Fathers of the Church, Ambrose for example, who were totally committed to peace. Erasmus principally rejected the notion of a “just war,” preferring Jesus to Augustine: “but I think that as a rule one should prefer the doctrine of Jesus and the apostles to that of Augustine. Although he too would reject the kind of wars we endlessly fight.”